-1 


F 

591 
.21 

Fe 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


MEXICANTl/LES 


IN  THE 


STATES  AND  TERRITORIES 


OF  THE 


UNITED  STATES 


BY 


J.  ALEXANDER  FORBES, 

Keeper  of  Spanish  flrct\ives  in  U.  S.  Sur.  Gen'ls  Office 

and  for  ir\any  years  in  tt\e  en\ploy  of  tl^e  Govern- 

nr\ent  of  tl\e  U.  S.  in  connection  iA>itt\  Spanish 

and  Mexican  Land  Grants  in  California. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CALIFORNIA 


[COPYRIGHTED] 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 
W.  A.  WOODWARD  &  Co.,  PRINTERS,  12  Sutter  Street, 


J  Alexander  Forlx 

Official  Gav.  Translat  ,,,  Keeper  of 

Goi/t.  Archives. 

5-4.7*8- 


TITHES 

In  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States. 


The  King  of  Spain  acquired  dominion  over  the  lands 
now  contained  within  the  bounds  of  Arizona,  New 
Mexico  and  Colorado,  California,  Nevada,  Utah  and 
Wyoming,  by  conquest  from  the  aborigines  (Indians) 
living  in  a  savage  state  in  that  locality. 

These  aborigines  had  no  custom  or  usage  in  regard 
to  title  to  lands  although  not  all  were  nomadic  in  their 
habits;  some  were  agriculturalists,  some  built  towns,  but 
none  of  them  had  any  settled  law  recognizing  what  is 
called  title  to  lands  ;  they  simply  took  and  held  possession 
from  time  to  time  of  what  they  wanted  individually  or 
collectively.  In  the  expedition  of  Col.  Don  Juan  Bautista 
de  Anza,  who  came  by  order  of  the  Spanish  Viceroy 
to  settle  the  port  of  San  Francisco,  in  the  year  1774, 
an  examination  was  made  of  the  Casas  Grandes,  build- 
ings said  to  have  been  erected  by  the  ancestors  of  the 
Indians  now  inhabiting  Arizona,  i.  e.  Pimas,  Papagoes, 
and  the  Gila  tribes.  There  De  Anza  discovered  the  im- 
mense ditches  evidently  at  one  time  intended  to  irri- 
gate the  entire  plain.  The  Apaches  have  no  kindred 
with  the  above  mentioned  tribes,  having  simply  been 
pushed  from  their  Eastern  homes  by  other  tribes,  and 
the  natural  course  of  white  immigration  in  later  years. 


Pu 


At  the  time  the  Spaniards  conquered  New  Spain,  or 
the  southern  portion  of  this  continent,  a  code  was 
promulgated  by  the  Spanish  Crown  called  the  Recopi- 
lacion  de  Indias.  applying  to  the  territory  in  question 
and  expressly  respecting  the  rights  of  the  aborigines 
to  the  soil.A 

These  rights  were,  in  brief:  that  they  should  not  be 
disturbed  wherever  they  had  fixed  possessions;  to 
which  end  the  Spanish  Crown  ordered  Indian  commu- 
nities to  be  formed,  and  sent  missionary  priests  to  con- 

A.     As  to  Indians'  rights,  see; 

The  first  law  given  in  Cigales  on  the  2ist  March,  1551,  by  Charles  V.,  and 
re-affirmed  by  Philip  II.,  Law  I,  Title  2,  B.  6,  Rec.  of  Indias. 

Law  8,  Tille  3,  Book  6,  of  the  same  Code. 

Royal  decree  of  June  4,  1687. 

Royal  decree  July  12,  1695. 

Ordinances  Nos.  88  and  89  of  Philip  II.,  contained  in  tbe  yth  Chapter  of  the 
same  Code. 

It  is  clear  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Spanish  and  Mexican  Laws,  that  the  In- 
dians were  entitled  in  equity,  and  by  strict  law,  to  all  the  lands  they  actually 
possessed  and  cultivated,  whenever  such  lands  can  be  properly  designated  by 
well-defined  boundaries.  Both  Spain  and  Mexico  have  always  acknowledged 
this  principle  to  be  a  just  one. 

See  laws  above  cited  and  decree  of  President  Benito  Juares  even  as  late  as 
September,  1867. 

On  February  23,  1781,  Viceroy  Martin  de  Mayorga  published  a  decree  of 
lhe  audiencia  prohibiting  Indians  from  selling  their  real  estate  without  license 
from  the  proper  authority.  This  remained  in  force  until  the  Independence 
of  Mexico  which  made  all  inhabitants  of  the  Mexican  Nation  equal  before  the 
law. 

The  plan  of  Yguala  adopted  on  the  24th  of  February,  1821,  made  Indians 
Mexican  citizens,  etc. 

The  Treaty  of  Cordova,  dated  August  24,  1821,  re-affirms  the  principle  above 
mentioned. 

The  decrees  the  of  Mexican  Congress  of  the  24th  of  P'ebruary,  1822,  and  9th 
of  April,  1823,  again  reiterates  the  same  principle. 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  United  States  i>.  Ritch:e,  17  How.,  525, 
has  held  that  Indians  could  purchase,  hold  and  sell  real  estate  under  the  Mex- 
ican law. 

All  Spanish  legislation  on  the  subject  shows  the  care  and  protection  given  to 
the  Indians  by  the  Crown. 

For  further  information  see  Royal  decrees  July  12,  1695;  June  5,  1811;  Feb- 
ruary 9,  1811;  March  13,  1811. 


gregate  the  Indian  tribes  in  fixed  localities,  the  seats 
or  headquarters  of  which  were  called  Missions. 
Within  the  districts  so  formed  no  Spanish  subject  or 
stranger  was  allowed  to  acquire  title  to  lands  without 
the  consent  of  the  missionary  fathers  in  charge  and 
the  Indians  of  the  community.  By  Royal  Decree  of 
Sept.  13,  1813,  and  Aug.  17,  1833,  all  Missions  were 
secularized,  z.  e.  the  monastic  dominion  of  the  priests 
over  the  Indian  communities  ceased,  and  in  its  place 
came  the  conversion  of  those  Missions  into  Indian 
Pueblos  or  Towns  with  a  Municipal  Government  by 
magistrates  elected  by  the  Indians  themselves,  subject 
however  to  regulation  by  the  Government.13 

Under  both  of  these  forms  of  Government  the 
aborigines  were  only  allowed  the  right  to  .possess 
and  cultivate  the  lands  in  community,  but  had  no  indi- 
vidual rights  therein.  Each  community  of  Indians 
that  reached  a  population  of  400  inhabitants  was 
allowed  two  square  leagues  of  land  and  no  more,  but 
this  was  not  in  fee,  only  for  the  time  being  and  subject 
to  divestment  by  the  Crown  at  any  time.  Then 
followed  in  1821  and  2,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Mexican 
Empire  which  preserved  the  same  laws.  This  condi- 


B.     With  reference  to  Pueblos: 

See  Art.  I  and  2,  Title  II,  of  the  Regulation  of  Presidios  (Garrisons),  dated 
September  10,  1792,  and  Article  50  of  the  ancient  regulation  of  the  Viceroy 
Marquis  of  Casapuerte,  dated  April  20,  1729,  that  was  ordered  to  be  observed  by 
Royal  order  of  the  I5th  May,  1779. 

See  also  Laws  10,  Title  5;  2  and  9,  Title  7;  I,  2  and  3,  Title  10;  Book  4, 
the  Recopilacion  de  Indias. 

See  also  Law  I,  Title  3,  Book  5,  and  Laws  5,  et  seq.,  Title  17,  Book  4,  of  the 
same  code. 


tion  of   thing's  continued   until    the    formation  of  the 
first  Mexican  Republic,  in  i823.c 

Some  Arizona  lands  stand  on  a  different  footing  from 
those  in  California  and  New  Mexico,  being  derived  by 
grant  from  the  independent  State  of  Sonora.  Lands 
in  Sonora  were  granted  upon  sale  to  the  highest  bid- 
der made  by  the  State  Treasurer,  by  virtue  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  iith  Article  of  the  law  of  the  4th  of 
August,  1824,  in  which  was  granted  by  the  Federal 
Government  of  Mexico  to  the  State  of  Sonora  all  the 
revenue  not  thereby  reserved  to  the  general  govern- 
ment. 

C.     Manner  of  granting  lands. 

Under  the  Spanish  Regime  Mercedes  or  grants  of  land  were  made  to  com- 
munities as  well  as  to  individuals,  and  upon  the  application  of  the  interested 
party  or  parties,  due  notice  was  given  to  the  residents  of  the  neighboring 
localities  and  there  being  no  objection  either  from  the  Indians  or  Spaniards 
titles  was  issued  to  the  applicant  making  a  record  of  the  same  in  the  book  en- 
titled "  Libro  de  Gobernacion"  that  was  kept  in  the  city  of  Mexico. 

Subsequently  petitions  were  addressed  to  the  President  of  the  Royal  Au- 
diencia  of  the  District  within  which  the  land  was  situated;  there  were  only  two 
Audiencias,  one  at  the  city  of  Mexico  and  the  other  at  Guadalajara. 

Subdelegados,  as  they  were  termed,  or  commissioreasof  the  same  Audiencias 
were  sent  out  to  make  grants  and  th2se  would  receive  and  pass  upon  applica- 
tions presented  to  them.  Under  the  ordinance  of  Intendentes  of  December  4, 
1786,  the  subject  matter  was  confided  to  the  Intendente  General,  who  simply  was 
authorized  to  sell  the  land  applied  for  to  the  highest  bidder. 

Grants  made  in  New  Mexico  and  Colorado  must  have  been  recorded  in  Santa 
Fe  and  the  city  of  Mexico. 

Grants  made  in  Arizona  should  be  found  recorded  either  in  Chihuahua  or 
Hermosillo,  in  which  localities  the  ancient  Archives  of  Internal  Provinces  seem 
to  exist. 

In  August  22,  1776,  Don  Theodora  de  Croix  was  appointed  Commandant 
General  of  Sinaloa,  Sonora,  Californias,  New  Biscay,  Coahuila,  Texas  and  New 
Mexico.  He  resided  in  Arispe,  Sonora.  No  power  seems  to  have  been  given  to 
him  to  sell  lands;  but  in  June  21,  1786,  Don  Jacobo  Ygasle  y  Loyola  ratifies  do- 
nations made  by  Governor  Don  Pedro  Fages,  in  1784,  to  Manuel  P.  Nieto,  Juan 
Jose  Domingues  and  Jose  Ma  Verdargo.  In  California  subsequently  Don  Pedro  de 
Nava,  Commandant  General,  also,  by  his  order  of  March  22,  1791,  authorized  the 
Captains  of  the  several  Presidios  to  make  grants  of  lands  to  individuals  for 
meritorious  services. 


The  public  land  within  the  state  was  one  source  of 
revenue.  A  law  of  the  State  of  Sonora,  passed  May 
2Oth,  1825,  prescribed  the  manner  of  acquiring  such 
public  land. 

The  State  Treasurer  was  required  to  duly  advertise 
the  land  for  sale  for  a  time  specified,  sell  same  to  the 
highest  bidder,  give  him  a  written  grant,  etc.  The 
magistrates  were  required  to  give  him  judicial  posses- 
sion and  protect  him  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  same. 

On  August  1 8th,  1824,  the  Congress  of  the  Mexi- 
can Republic  passed  a  law  providing  for  the  coloniza- 
tion of  the  territories  of  the  Republic,  of  which  the 
land  comprised  within  the  present  geographical  limits 
of  California,  Nevada,  Utah,  Wyoming,  Colorado,  New 
Mexico  and  Arizona  was  a  part. 

On  November  21,  1828,  regulations  were  made  and 
promulgated  by  the  Executive  Government  of  Mexico 
for  carrying  into  effect  this  former  law.  Under  the 
above  provisions  all  subsequent  titles  were  issued  in 
said  states  and  territories. 

As  an  incentive  to  colonization  of  vacant  lands  the 
Governors  of  the  several  territories  were  authorized 
to  make  grants  of  lands  with  the  approval  of  the 
Territorial  Deputation,  and  later  the  Departmental 
Assembly,  which  consisted  of  a  body  elected  by  the 
Mexican  citizens  of  the  territory  in  which  they  resided. 

Upon  receipt  of  such  grant  the  grantee  was  required 
to  present  his  title  papers  to  a  judicial  officer,  gener- 
ally the  Alcalde  of  the  nearest  town,  who  was  required 


to  give  him  judicial   possession,  in  doing  which,  a  lo- 
cation of  the  boundaries  was  made  and  recorded. 

A  provision  was  made  by  law  for  the  recording  of 
these  grants,  and  proceedings   leading  up  to  them,  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  Department. 
In  all  cases  the  Governors  preserved  a  memorandum 
of  the  fact  of  granting.     Besides  these  grants  by  the 
Territorial  Governors,  the   Spanish   Crown,  during  its 
dominion,  and  the  Empire  and  Republic,  during  theirs, 
made  grants   from  time   to  time  to  their   subjects  for 
meritorious  services.     These  were  a  separate  charac- 
ter of  grants,   but  the  record   was   preserved  in  same 
way.     Under   these   conditions  the  inhabitants  of  the 
states  and  territories  in  question  held  their  lands  on 
February   2,    1848,    when  the    Treaty    of   Guadalupe 
Hidalgo    was    concluded    at    that    city    between    the 
United    States  of  America  and  the    United    Mexican 
States,  the  ratifications  of  which  were  exchanged  May 
3<Dth,    1848.     This    treaty    fixed  a  boundary    line  be- 
tween the  two   governments,  by  which   certain  terri- 
tory, including  the  present   California,   Nevada,  Utah, 
Wyoming,   Arizona,    New    Mexico  and   Colorado  be- 
came the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

The  treaty  stipulates  in  Articles  VIII  and  IX  for 
the  freedom  and  protection  of  the  Mexican  citizens 
inhabiting  the  territory  ceded  in  the  enjoyment  of 
their  property,  and  also  expressly  provided  that  the 
rights  of  non-resident  Mexicans  to  property  within 
said  territory  should  remain  inviolate,  and  that  the 
said  owners,  their  heirs  or  Mexicans  acquiring  the 


same  thereafter  by  contract,  should  enjoy  with  respect 
to  it,  guarantees  equally  ample  as  if  the  same  belonged 
to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Without  any  treaty 
stipulation  the  property  of  Mexicans  thus  situated 
would  doubtless  have  been  entitled  by  the  law  of 
nations,  to  such  protection  from  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  Soon  after  this  the  U.  S.  Congress 
created  a  Commission  in  California  to  pass  upon  the 
validity  of  grants  in  the  territory  ceded,  with  right  of 
appeal  to  District  Court  and  then  to  Supreme  Court. 
A  portion  of  the  lands  in  the  territory  thus  added  to 
the  United  States,  claimed  by  individuals  and  corpora- 
tions, rests  on  incomplete  and  imperfect  grants;  on  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Spanish  or  Mexican  authorities,  which 
may  or  may  not  have  constituted  the  proper  or  prelim- 
inary steps  toward  a  perfect  title,  and  which,  if  the  terri- 
tory had  remained  under  Mexican  rule,  might  or  might 
not  have  been  recognized  by  those  authorities  as  suffi- 
cient to  entitle  the  claimant  to  a  full  and  perfect  grant. 
On  Nov.  25,  '53,  the  Mexican  Government  by  law  an- 
nulled all  grants  not  then  approved  and  properly  record- 
ed. Subsequently,  Dec.  30,  1853,  by  a  treaty  called 
the  Gadsden  purchase,  the  United  States  acquired  more 
land  to  the  south  of  the  Gila  River  and  grants  stood 
upon  substantially  the  same  terms  as  by  the  Treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  except  that  Mexicans  seeking 
to  protect  their  titles  were  required  to  have  recorded 
their  grants  at  the  City  of  Mexico  in  accordance  with 
said  law  of  that  country,  passed  Nov.  25,  1853.  By 
the  terms  of  these  treaties  as  well  as  by  the  law  of 


8 

nations,  an  obligation  was  imposed  on  the  government 
of  the  United  States  to  do,  in  such  cases,  that  which 
in  the  common  course  of  proceedings  of  the  Mexican 
Government  she  would  have  done.  This  is  a  political 
obligation  which  could  not  be  properly  performed  by 
our  courts  of  justice  acting  in  their  ordinary  judicial 
capacity,  and  it  was  principally  to  perform  this  obliga- 
tion in  a  manner  convenient  to  claimants,  that  the 
present  Court  was  created  by  act  of  Congress  of 
March.  1891,  though  a  separation  of  the  public  lands 
from  those  of  individuals  was  doubtless  an  important 
object  also. 

It  will  be  seen  by  consideration  of  the  above  out- 
line, that  the  new  Court  will  have  ;o  deal  with  the  fol- 
lowing classes  of  titles: 

i  st.  Such  as  are  still  retained  by  religious  persons 
or  bodies.1 

2nd.  Such  as  are  still  held  by  Indian  communities, 
if  any. 

(The  Indians  holding  in  severalty  are  on  the  same 
footing  as  Mexicans,  having  become  citizens  under  the 
laws  of  Mexico.)2 

3rd.  Such  as  were  obtained  through  grant  upon 
sale  to  the  highest  bidder  by  the  State  of  Sonora. 

4th.  Such  as  were  granted  by  Mexican  authorities 
to  individual  Mexican  citizens  for  meritorious  services, 
or  in  aid  of  colonization  to  any  one. 

I.    U.  S.  v.  Ritchie,  17  Howard,  p.  540. 

U.  S.  v.  Alemany,  Bishop,  U.  S.  District  Court,  Cal. 
V.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  pp.  16  and  38. 
2.   U.  S.  v.  Ritchie,  17  Howard,  p.  540. 
II.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  3,  et  seg. 


5th.     Such  as  were  granted  by  the  Spanish  Crown. 

6th.  Such  as  have  been  acquired  by  individual  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  under  our  laws. 

7th.  Such  as  have  been  granted  by  the  United 
States  to  corporations. 

8th.  Such  as  have  been  acquired  by  corporations 
under  the  law  of  eminent  domain. 

9th.  Lands  held  by  the  United  States  for  military 
and  other  governmental  purposes. 

icth.  The  residue  of  Public  Lands  of  the  United 
States. 

Some  of  the  most  important  legal  features  presented 
in  this  character  of  litigation,  involve: 

Actual  Possession.3 

The  Doctrine  of  Abandonment  and  Laches.4 

Law  of  Evidence  as  to  Boundaries.3 

Rule  as  to  Proof  of  Foreign  Laws,  Usages  and  Cus- 
toms.6 

Questions  of  Inheritance. 

3.  Smith's  Case,  10  Peters,  p.  330. 

4.  Hughes'  Case,  13  Howard,  p.  i. 

Ruggles  v.  De  Tournon  et  al.,  16  Howard,  p.  242. 
U.  S.  v.  Sutler,  21  Howard,  p.  170. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  478  to  487. 

5.  U.  S.  v.  Lawton,  5  Howard,  p.  10  to  29. 
Menard's  Heirs  v.  Massey,  8  Howard,  p.  293. 
Fossatt's  Case,  20  Howard,  p.  426. 

II.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  pp.  150,  155,  174. 
XI.  Idem,  p.  i,  ft  seq. 

6.  Laws  in  existence  before  Treaty  to  be  judicially  noticed. 
U.  S.  v.  Perot,  98  U.  S.,  p.  428. 

U.  S.  v.  Arredondo,  6  Peters,  p.  714. 
U.  S.  v.  Clark,  8  Peters,  p.  450. 
Strother  v.  Lucas,  12  Peters,  p.  436. 
U.  S.  v.  Turnei,  II  Howard,  p.  668. 


1O 

Conditions  Annexed  to  Grants.7 

The  Probative  Force  of  Recitals  in  Foreign  Grants.8 

Citizenship  and  Treaties.9 

Learned  and  exhaustive  discussions  of  these  sub- 
jects will  be  found  in  the  briefs  of  Caleb  Gushing,  who 
represented  the  government  in  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  Florida,  Louisiana  and  California  cases;  and  of 
William  Carey  Jones,  Halleck,  Peachy  &  Billings,  who 
represented  claimants  before  the  California  Land  Com- 
mission, and  in  the  Supreme  Court;  also  in  the  case  on 
appeal  from  Gal.  Dist.  Ct.  of  U.  S.  v.  Cruz  Cervantes.10 

JURISDICTION    OF    THE    COURT. 

We  do  not  claim  as  a  settled  proposition  of  law 
that  the  Court  can  determine  the  rights  of  con- 
testants who  do  not  deraign  title  from  a  Mexican  or 

Subject  in  general. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  pp.  62,  et  seq.,  pp.  277,  328. 

Text  of  Mexican  Colonization  Law  of  1824  and  decree  of  1828. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  pp.  70,  et  seq.,  and  p.  335. 

Definition  of  complete  grant  under  Spanish  Laws. 

Menard's  Heirs  v.  Massey,  ubi  supra. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  90;  II.  Idem.,  p.  155. 

Distinction  between  private  and  empressario  grants. 

U.  S.  v.  Bolton,  23  Howard,  341. 

XVI.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  3. 

7.  Fremont's  Case,  17  Howard,  p.  564. 
Cervantes'  Case,  18  Howard,  p.  555. 
U.  S.  v.  Larkin,  Idem.,  p.  563. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  pp.  90  to  100,  119,  335. 

8.  Hornsby  v.  U.  S.,  10  Wall.,  p.  224. 

9.  Soulard  v.  U.  S.,  4  Peters,  p.  511. 

I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  62,  et  seq. 
Table  of  ca.-»es  decided  under  Treaties. 
I.  Wills'  Cal.  Titles,  p.  332,  et  seq. 

10.  The  following  text  books  are  also  valuable: 

Schmidt's  Civil  Law  of  Spain  and  Mexico;  Whites'  Recopilacion;  Galvan's 
Coleccion  de  Decretos;  Las  Partidas,  translated  by  Moreau  &  Carleton;  Rock- 
well's Spanish  and  Mexican  Law  of  Min^s  and  Real  Estate. 


1 1 

Spanish  grant.  But  certainly,  the  Act  of  Congress 
intends  that  the  Court  shall  listen  to  them  as  much  as 
it  does  to  the  representative  of  the  United  States,  so 
that  the  Mexican  title  shall  be  finally  settled:  i.  e.,  its 
value  as  an  evidence  of  ownership  finally  defined. 

After  such  settlement  it  may  be  the  province  of  the 
Land  Office,  the  United  States  District  or  Circuit  Court 
or  the  State  Courts,  to  determine  within  their  several 
jurisdictions  who  shall  have  the  present  possession  and 
enjoyment  of  the  lands  in  question. 

At  all  events  it  will  be  safe  for  all  persons  within 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  new  Court  having 
rights  in  conflict  with  claimants  under  Spanish  or  Mex- 
ican grants,  to  appear  and  protect  their  rights,  as  ad- 
vised by  counsel. 

In  the  consideration  of  the  questions  that  will  arise 
before  this  Court,  our  private  collection  of  prece- 
dents in  Florida  and  Louisiana,  briefs  of  eminent 
counsel,  opinions  of  the  commissions  appointed  for  a 
similar  purpose  in  California  in  1851,  extracts  from  the 
evidence,  oral  and  documentary,  offered  before  them, 
translations  of  documents  and  foreign  laws  and  treatises 
used  in  their  proceedings  and  decisions  of  United 
States  District  and  Supreme  Courts  in  leading  cases  on 
appeal,  will  be  found  invaluable.  These  will  be  care- 
fully digested  and  indexed  by  the  time  the  Court 
sits. 

Meanwhile  it  will  be  profitable  to  consider  what 
evidence  should  be  collected  by  the  claimant,  and  what 
rules  of  law  are  to  be  applied  thereto.  Of  these 


12 

subjects  we  have  made  close  study,  and  hope  to 
place  the  result  at  the  disposal  of  those  seeking  the 
aid  of  said  Court  when  required. 

J.  ALEXANDER  FORBES. 
San  Francisco,  Aug.  i,  1891. 


